MacBook - which CPU?!

Finally the MacBooks support 4k @60hz for external monitors! About to pull the trigger on five of them - we sat out the 2016 update as 4k support sucked & had stayed with our 2012/13 MBA's - which really start to break down.

But now the question of which CPU to choose?! The cheaper MB's still are Skylake m3's, the more expensive 512GB SSD models have Karby Lake i5's (1.3GHz) or i7's (1.4GHz).

All machines are used in academic settings mainly for writing + some light Phyton and Java-programming in context of bibliographic analyis (Tethne). All desks have external 4k monitors and some of us also use Duet to use iPads as additional external monitors.

We are not going to get the m3's but is it worth to get the i7's over the i5s?

As a owner of a MBP13 Touchbar, I would LOATHE to use this thing full time for mostly writing. I have owned it long enough to get used to the keyboard but the old MBP13 Retina has such a better keyboard it's not even in the same league.

Those CPUs aren't "standard" in the sense that OEMs can specify temp targets, so absent testing it's impossible to say what the real world i5/i7 performance difference will actually be.

However it would appear that best case the i7 turbos to 3.6GHz vs 3.2GHz for the i5. So at most you're talking about a ~10% performance delta, which is in "never really going to notice the difference" territory.

The CPUs are all fully in line with Intel specs for Kaby Lake. No Skylake on the 2017 Macbook. Intel has just changed their naming starting with Kaby Lake, so that the 4.5W CPU series is now called m3/i5/i7, where last year's Skylake they were called m3/m5/m7. These are all still 4.5W CPUs, as you can tell from the very low base clock frequency. They just dropped the m naming on the 5/7...

So Apple runs the CPUs at a 100MHz higher base clock (i.e. probably bringing the CPU a little over 4.5W TDP) but the turbo boost frequency is unchanged from the Intel specifications. If you look on Intel ARK, it lists "configurable TDP-up frequency" on each of these CPUs, and in each case Apple is well within specs.

Realistically the difference between the m3 and i5 looks absolutely tiny to me. 100MHz difference in the base clock, 200MHz turbo boost difference. I would expect benchmarks to be much closer this time round for the m3 to i5 than last year for the m3 to m5.

They compared the m3, m5, and m7 processors to each other, concluding that the m7 model actually had lower sustained clock speeds under load than the m5 model. So if you plan to do any HandBraking, then at least for last year's MacBooks, the mid-range m5 processor is actually a better choice. I wouldn't expect the calculus to change this year. The MacBook package only has passive cooling, so they ramp the clock speed down pretty quickly to prevent the Mac from overheating.

In an academic setting that doesn't involve any simulations and does have frequent burst loads, then this year's i7 is almost certainly better than the i5, but as other posters have asked, is the performance difference perceptible? Turbo Boost is only on for a few seconds at a time, if that. Maybe your applications would launch faster?

For me the 16 GB RAM upgrade seems worth more consideration. I have last year's 1.3 GHz m5, 512 GB SSD, 8 GB RAM config. I'm tempted to upgrade to 16 GB RAM and to get the slightly improved keyboard.

The CPUs are all fully in line with Intel specs for Kaby Lake. No Skylake on the 2017 Macbook. Intel has just changed their naming starting with Kaby Lake, so that the 4.5W CPU series is now called m3/i5/i7, where last year's Skylake they were called m3/m5/m7. These are all still 4.5W CPUs, as you can tell from the very low base clock frequency. They just dropped the m naming on the 5/7...

So Apple runs the CPUs at a 100MHz higher base clock (i.e. probably bringing the CPU a little over 4.5W TDP) but the turbo boost frequency is unchanged from the Intel specifications. If you look on Intel ARK, it lists "configurable TDP-up frequency" on each of these CPUs, and in each case Apple is well within specs.

Realistically the difference between the m3 and i5 looks absolutely tiny to me. 100MHz difference in the base clock, 200MHz turbo boost difference. I would expect benchmarks to be much closer this time round for the m3 to i5 than last year for the m3 to m5.

Configurations with the 512GB SSD are i5/i7 only, so that precludes the m3 for some.

I've been very happy with my m5-based 2016 MacBook. Sure it doesn't plough through Xcode build as zippily as a 15" MBP, but it does it fast enough, is more portable, and far more pleasant to have sat on a lap.

The weight is a deal breaker as I tend to travel around with it a lot, otherwise I would take MBP.

I have an older Retina MBP that I primarily use for writing, Devonthink Pro, and a couple of other pretty light tasks, and I"m tempted by the new MacBook: It's so damn light, and I have an iMac for tougher tasks.

Notebookcheck has the most comprehensive and in-depth reviews of laptops. At least 100x better than Ars' reviews, though Ars is good for pretty pictures and some intangible very subjective things like how it feels to use the device. They're like Phonearena from back in the day.

Interesting, their review of the m3 points out that after some time the Turbo freq runs around 2 Ghz. I have the m5 model and it too sticks around 2 GHz once warm. So again, the base model shines. Of course the m5 would fair better in shorter, burst-ier workloads.